On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > Well, solving that problem is exactly why we have the PM callbacks in > bus hierarchy. No. That's a separate thing. We have PM callbacks in the bus hierarchy because we need that just to turn them off. You can't turn off the device after you've turned off the bus it is attached to. But that's _totally_ orthogonal to the issue that a complex state save may need a totally unrelated device - along dependancies we don't even _know_. For example, when a device save needs to allocate memory, that in turn can end up needing to write to just about _any_ device - and there simply _is_ no hierarchy for that. No such hierarchy is even possible, because it's a circular problem. Btw, one final note: If people who do STD really do want to suspend all devices and then wake up devices that lead to the STD device, in the end, I personally simply don't care. I _guarantee_ you that the ordering I've shown is the right one for STR. And since STR is the one _I_ care about, I want STR to work right. If people want to have a totally screwed-up suspend-to-disk, that's _your_ problem, I don't really care. I never have. But as it is, the _broken_ decisions that the current PM does makes it harder to do a proper STR and also debug it while doing it (so that it will some day actually work not just on the few machines somebody decides are important). I want STR to "work by default", rather than "work by accident, sometimes" like it does now. And in order to do STR sanely, that "save_state()" needs to be separate from "suspend()". No ifs, buts, maybe's about it. With a separate save_state, I can keep the console open until it's really time to finally shut it off, and debug the sequence to the bitter end. And STR doesn't have any atomicity issues, since the memory image just doesn't _go_ anywhere. So if this means that STR is just done sanely, and STD is done in the same old totally broken manner, I personally do not care one whit. Linus
